History, doctrine, culture, books

Missing W.

T minus two days and counting. The NY Times ran a piece with six columnists writing on the theme "What I Will Miss About President Bush." One, citing many staffers he interviewed, noted that "he never pointed fingers, harbored grudges, snubbed, publicly belittled or boasted." Another said, "I’ll miss President Bush’s moral clarity." A third said, "What I will miss most about George W. Bush as president is his sincere concern for promoting human dignity."

What will I miss about President George W. Bush? He did what had to be done after 9/11 -- he didn't just fire off a couple of missiles and call a press conference, he put boots on the ground and eliminated the threat when the sponsoring government refused to do so. That's how you establish credibility, folks. You'll notice the glaring absence of successful terrorist strikes inside the borders of the United States after 9/11. Let's hope his successor can one day make the same claim.

Note: If the NY Times can find something nice to say about Pres. Bush, I'm sure you can too. Go ahead, give it a try.

Name me one foreign leader who thinks Bush is credible. And I'm not talking about diplomatic stuff. The real stuff, behind the scenes, what a leader would say were his words not going to get him in trouble.

Dan, the credibility I'm talking about goes to the willingness to use force if required to protect and defend the United States and its legitimate interests. It's clear Bush has credibility on that measure. That's why some foreign leaders object; they prefer a US leader with no credibility.

If someone thinks it is more important to kiss up to foreign leaders than defend and protect the United States, they shouldn't take the oath of office. Go work for the UN or some NGO, but don't run for president.

Uh, I don't see that you made a real effort to say something nice about President Bush, Dan. Try again.

As Dave mentioned, he did what he had to do after September 11. He never wavered and didn't buckle under the polls or relentless attacks from those across and on the same side of the aisle.

As much as many have tried to paint him as a theocrat, I haven't seen much of that except an incredible patience with being attacked for for the silliest (and not so silly) of things and not return in kind. He was certainly not poll-driven.

Dan, the credibility I'm talking about goes to the willingness to use force if required to protect and defend the United States and its legitimate interests.

And as far as the use of force is concerned, all Bush did was show that America was a "strutting cock", striking at any hint of threat, rather than wisely acting based on well thought out strategies.

Take for instance the latest incident, where we violated Syrian territory and killed eight Syrians. Guess what the Syrians did in retaliation. They effectively moved their soldiers OFF the Iraqi border, thereby making that border far more porous. Was it really necessary to make that strike? No, not really. We lacked the imagination of how to deal with that problem and simply became a dumb, blunt force tool. It speaks to the whole Iraq war. Did we really need to get Saddam? Was he really a threat to his neighbors? no not really. Don't believe me? Would you believe Colin Powell? You say you like him as Secretary of State. Well, here is what he said in February 2001 about Saddam Hussein:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

Yes, Colin Powell, as Secretary of State said in February 2001 that Saddam was not able to project conventional power against his neighbors. Pray answer, what changed in two years? Did Saddam really increase his capability in a mere two years worthy enough of an invasion? Please! What changed is that America was turned into a dumb, blunt-force tool by Bush and his cronies. Let me share with you a Chinese parable that illustrates who we are, and who we are not.

Chi Hsing Tzu was a trainer of fighting cocks
for King Hsuan.
He was training a fine bird.
The King kept asking if the bird were
Ready for combat.
"Not yet," said the trainer.
"He is full of fire.
He is ready to pick a fight
With every other bird. He is vain and confident
Of his own strength."
After ten days, he answered again:
"Not yet. He flares up
When he hears another bird crow."
After ten more days:
"Not yet. He still gets
That angry look
and ruffles his feathers."
Again ten days:
The trainer said, "Now he is nearly ready.
When another bird crows, his eye
does not even flicker.
He stands immobile
Like a cock of wood.
He is a mature fighter.
Other birds
will take one look at him
And run."

America is the untrained bird, the one full of itself "ready to pick a fight with every other bird." We are not the "mature fighter." We are not the one that other birds take a look at and run. We've lost our way.

You'll notice the glaring absence of successful terrorist strikes inside the borders of the United States after 9/11

Didn't 9/11 itself count for something?

We'll also notice that we are substantially more likely to be attacked by terrorists in the future, thanks to the worst foreign policy move in a generation: Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq. American goodwill has gone down the crapper abroad.

Dan, Steve M., and Hunter -- Wow, you guys are really hard core partisans. I'm no Obama fan, but I could find a half dozen nice things to say about him if I really had to. His election would help advance racial equality and heal lingering harsh feelings. He gives fine speeches. Maybe liberals will stop fulminating and try governing for a change (this would be a step forward). He knocked Hilary out in the primaries, for which he deserves praise and credit. Foreign leaders and populations will initially be very happy (until Russian "peacekeepers" visit the Ukraine in force). Somebody's taxes will go down.

See? It's not so hard. Give it another try to see if you can find one nice thing to say about Pres. Bush.

Back on September 12, 2001 when 90% of the country gave Bush his support, I was a part of that 10% who didn't. I knew he would abuse that power.

There is nothing nice I have to say about him. He took our country into Iraq, and he introduced torture. Those two things, above all else---including politicizing the Department of Justice and, well, all other Federal departments---overwhelm any nice things about him. I will never have anything nice to say about him for the rest of my life. Get back to me in the eternities, Dave. My heart might be softened toward him then.

Ah, but see the trained bird would still not strike wildly, and more importantly would not take its eye off the real target to strike at another bird that's, well, giving it the "bird."

You're also going on the assumption that al-Qaeda is idiotic in striking the trained bird---America. But they are not. There is a method to their madness, you see. Hellmut over at Headlife made a great point. Al-Qaeda is hiding right now in Pakistan, among the Pashtuns. Do you know how many Pashtuns there are in Pakistan? 45 million of them. These Pashtuns apparently think highly enough of Al-Qaeda that they allow them sanctuary.

There's nothing idiotic about what Al-Qaeda did. They struck the United States to generate a response against Muslims to prove to Muslims that Christian America hates Islam. To this point, the United States has attacked two Muslim nations, is threatening two others, and making peace with repressive dictators in the rest. Al-Qaeda made their point, and it was a supremely successful strike.

I dunno, Ian. At least in his second term, Bush got soft on State Sponsors of Terrorism and even went so far as to twist Treasury's arm to unfreeze North Korean assets in a deal-making dance with the devil that left many of his conservative pals foaming at the mouth.

Not that progress towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is bad thing.

Although Bush doubled funding for AIDS prevention in Africa, in effect two-thirds had to be spent on abstinence training. IN other words, two-thirds was totally useless; the AIDS rate in Uganda, previously declining is now rising. Thanks Bush Administration.

I have nothing good to say about him. Though I think attacking THE WRONG COUNTRY after 9-11 was his worse mistake.

Geeze Dan, you can't find anything he did right? I mean I can find nice things to say about LBJ and he got us into Viet Nam which killed way more people than HWB. And he gave us some pretty horrible government programs.

Take for instance the latest incident, where we violated Syrian territory and killed eight Syrians. Guess what the Syrians did in retaliation.

There is fair evidence that raid was done with the cooperation of the Syrian government. Most intelligence sources say our relationship with Syria is better than it has been at anytime since 9/11 and there is a lot of cooperation. If Syria is opening the border like that it's probably (a) a power play within the government or (b) part of some larger military strategy.

Yes, Colin Powell, as Secretary of State said in February 2001 that Saddam was not able to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Except that at the time conventional power wasn't what anyone was worried about. I mean the WMD evidence wasn't nearly as good as portrayed and Powell deserves blame for how the evidence was portrayed. But let's not get so revisionist that we pretend the debate was about conventional forces.

Introduced torture? Other than a short time in the 90's was there honestly a period when there wasn't torture? And even Bill Clinton was using rendition to get other nations to torture for information.

I mean let's condemn it. But this illusion that it wasn't going on is naive. Heck, it was standard operating procedure in American police departments for way too long.

I'm grateful he didn't shut down all government funded stem cell research, even though he was getting a lot of pressure from religious zealots to do so. I'm hoping the next president will expand stem cell research, but I'm grateful Bush was willing to compromise.

I mean I can find nice things to say about LBJ and he got us into Viet Nam which killed way more people than HWB.

So I should be grateful Bush didn't kill as many people as LBJ...

And he gave us some pretty horrible government programs.

Which ones? Because it seems to me that life got better for far more Americans after LBJ.

There is fair evidence that raid was done with the cooperation of the Syrian government.

Yeah, I saw that report. That's heartening to see. Somehow, I don't think the Syrian government gave approval for the Americans to kill its citizens (though this being an Asad regime that might not be the case).

Except that at the time conventional power wasn't what anyone was worried about. I mean the WMD evidence wasn't nearly as good as portrayed and Powell deserves blame for how the evidence was portrayed. But let's not get so revisionist that we pretend the debate was about conventional forces.

Clark, Colin Powell said in 2001 that sanctions had worked and that Saddam made no progress in his attempts to get WMDs. He did not somehow magically improve those capabilities in a mere two years.

Secondly, you need conventional weaponry to be a threat to your neighbors, to threaten them with invasion, a threat worthy enough of full outright invasion.

Introduced torture?

Yes, introduced torture. Obviously previous presidents had done bad things behind the scenes, but they didn't try to LEGALIZE it, to make it a common occurrence in our country.

Regarding Powell, clearly he changed his mind. But that's beside the point. The point is that it wasn't Sadaam's convential forces anyone was worried about. In any case, despite Powell's earlier comments, there was consensus in the intelligence community that he was further along than he was. The consensus was bad and I strongly think Bush should have investigated further rather than believing things. And Powell should have showed some backbone and integrity. However the fact is that the claim you made simply wasn't what the discussion at the time was about. It's pure revisionism.

As for torture, that's a cop out Dan. The CIA was doing significant research in torture under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. I know you know that.

I also know you know that the legality of torture is primarily the issue of the UN Convention Against Torture in 1994 and that Clinton added some weasel words so as to effectively allow it.

But again, remember, I really am a moderate. I want the war in Iraq ended, and torture removed from our nation. Other than those two things, I really don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the rest of the issues.

Look, I want the war in Iraq ended as swiftly as possible but not at the cost of the responsibilities we incurred. I think Bush has given Obama a huge gift by maintaining troop levels at the levels they are at. This will let Obama draw down troops and thus appear to placate the "it's all about pulling out of Iraq" crowd while really leaving a significant force in place.

Where I'm really interested is in how Obama reacts towards Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. Petraeus already holds some positions there that map more on to Obama than Bush. (i.e. in terms of talking to everyone in the region) It appears that Petraeus has been prevailing against the standard Bush position especially with regards to Syria. But I suspect there will be more harmony between Petraeus and Obama than many imagine.

Torture will end, of course. But then it was effectively ended some time ago. Obama will at best hasten changes that are already in effect. I'd be really, really, surprised if Obama makes as big changes as some are asserting. I think the structure of things will preclude those big changes - especially if Obama is as thoughtful and deliberative as I think. Now McCain I'd fear him making some big and stupid changes. Which is why I voted against him.

Mormon Books 2013-14

Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of MormonismGivens and Grow's warts-and-all biography of this energetic missionary, author, and apostle whose LDS career spanned Joseph Smith's life, the emigration to Utah, and Brigham Young's early leadership of the Church in Utah. My Review